E-Media Tidbits

nuj.org.uk A UK journalists' union has taken an explicitly political stand. Is this ethical?

Last week, the NUJ passed a motion at its centenary meeting to support a boycott of Israeli goods. The organization itself says the vote and support for Johnston are related. The "boycott call was a gesture of support for the Palestinian people -- notably those suffering in the siege of Gaza, the community Alan Johnston has been so keen to help through his reporting," the NUJ says. The organization goes on to say the boycott call has nothing to do with reporting, and that it stands "for free reporting and free speech -- and we criticise those, including the Palestinian and Israeli authorities, when they act against journalists' freedom to report."

That wording notwithstanding, the NUJ's vote has been subjected to withering criticism in Israel and elsewhere. British writer Chas Newkey Burden wrote on Ynetnews that the journalists' union vote reflected a deep animosity toward Israel.

The Jewish Telegraphic Agency reported that union member Tony Harnden, the Telegraph's Washington correspondent, called the move "inane" and "insulting to the intelligence." He added, "This kind of thing is what gives British trade unions their loony left image."

The Anti-Defamation League has also jumped into the fray: "It is shocking that a group representing journalists could approve such a highly politicized and blatantly biased statement, which is at odds with their profession's mandate to remain objective and unbiased observers," the ADL said.

The Israel-based writers' discussion lists to which I subscribe have been humming, too. One sarcastically suggested that Israelis help compile a list of Israeli products to boycott, including: "generic pharmaceuticals, imaging equipment, cell phone gadgets, Intel processors... so much more besides Jaffa oranges... Who's going to take the lead?"

I try not to take sides in my comments from Israel for Tidbits, and I try to present media developments here in a disinterested fashion. But this one just rubs me the wrong way. Even the NUJ's mealy-mouthed non-denial-denial that it can maintain objective reporting standards does not hold water.

Look at the wording above: the "boycott call was a gesture of support for the Palestinian people -- notably those suffering in the siege of Gaza, the community Alan Johnston has been so keen to help through his reporting." A "gesture of support"? "The community Alan Johnston has been so keen to help"? What are those statements but a direct contradiction of their call for balanced reporting?

It is difficult to remain neutral here. Everything going on pushes individuals to one side or the other. But the NUJ has, to me at least, dropped all pretense of remaining neutral. I find that a truly disturbing development.

Back to Johnston's plight, which is all too real: One report carried on Ynetnews from World Net Daily (but not picked up elsewhere) claimed Johnston is alive and being held by a Palestinian clan in the Gaza Strip demanding a $5 million ransom. They may "sell" Johnston to another group or kill him if the ransom is not paid. The report came after earlier claims (generally discounted) that a previously unknown Islamist group had killed Johnston.

World Net Daily may not be right, but one thing is true: Numerous appeals and rallies on his behalf have been fruitless, so far. An Arabic and English Web site calling for his release is now online, and it is brimming with denunciations of those who have kidnapped Johnston (along with many praising Johnston's reporting for being helpful and supportive of Palestinians).

DISCLOSURE: I am the founding editor of Ynetnews.com, and I occasionally contribute to it, but am no longer employed there.